|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... ealizable value of the gold jewellery and silver articles was less than the value adopted by the Assessing Officer. We find that the assessee, on the basis of three certificates of three gold ornaments, claimed that there should be adjustment for purity for gold jewellery of 25 and for silver articles 30 . The assessee has not filed the list of gold jewellery and silver articles seized during the course of search. In the absence of the details of jewellery seized, we are unable to comment on the adequacy of the sample size of gold ornaments and silver articles to decide the purity of gold in gold ornaments and the purity of silver in silver articles. In the absence of any such material having been brought on record, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed. Grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 12th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1132
Nature of income - Held that:- Assessee has earned interest on bank deposit and share application money amounting to ₹ 14,39,68,000/-. The said income has declared as business income which the AO has treated as income from other sources being interest earned on surplus funds. We find that the assessee was not engaged in money lending business and the interest was earned by parking surplus funds in banks and with other (share application money). Hence the same cannot be chargeable under the head “income from business and profession” and can be treated as only “income from other sources. Hence we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this issue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... ard both sides and perused the records. There is an admitted default in the case. The duty was not paid on the due date. The length of delay in payment of duty is well evident from record and also supported by Annexure A to show cause notice. It is elementary principal of jurisprudence that right to interest follows right to restoration. Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 has such object to achieve. It may also be stated that when public revenue is not collected by due date, public interest suffers and public welfare is given go bye. Such social philosophy is embedded in fiscal statute to realise interest from defaulters. Therefore the length of delay between due date of payment of duty and date of payment quantified interest payable on defaulted amount. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued on well founded allegation and reason cannot be discarded. Consequently, first appellate order is confirmed dismissing the appeal. Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court .
-
2011 (8) TMI 1130
Warrant of authorisation under Section 132 (1) issued in the joint names - Held that:- We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in law in relying upon the judgment in Smt. Vandana Verma's case (supra) in which it was held that where the search operations are carried out in the joint names, the individual assessment could not have been made. The Court has given reasons to reach to such conclusion. They have held that in case, the authorizing authority had information in his possession in consequence of which he had reason to believe that Mudit Verma and Vandana Verma though living in a single premises as husband and wife, possessed undisclosed assets including income separately, then, he might have issued warrant of search individually for conducting the search as both Mudit Verma and Vandana Verma are assessed to income tax in their individual capacity. When warrant of authorization was issued in the joint names it was not open for the assessing authority to assess Smt. Vandana Verma on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance of the warrant of authorization which was in the joint names, and that too by invoking the provisions of Chapter XIV-B in an individual capacity. She could be assessed jointly only as AOP of BOI as per the definition of the word "person" under the Income Tax Act.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1129
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Assessee is having sufficient own funds and when he has borrowed funds even if he is having own funds, the presumption always goes in favour of the assessee that the assessee made investments out of own funds, therefore, the provisions of section 14A of the Act, is not applicable to the case of the assessee. In view of the said discussion, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised in AY 2006-07 is allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1128
Denial of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) - income derived by the assessee from development of eligible infrastructural facilities - Held that:- Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shows that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order in favour of the Revenue by relying upon its decision in the case of B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum Const. (P) Limited V/s. ACIT [2009 (10) TMI 521 - ITAT MUMBAI]
It is not in dispute that the said decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons (Supra) has been recalled by the Tribunal by order in BT. PATIL & SONS BELGAUM CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. VERSUS ACIT [2012 (6) TMI 316 - ITAT, PUNE]
The impugned order of the Tribunal relating to AY 2003-04 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1127
Whether the implementation of the 27% reservation for other backward classes (for short `OBCs') in Central Educational Institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No.5 of 2007) (for short `CEI Act') valid?
Whether is the meaning to be assigned to the direction "the maximum cut-off marks for OBCs be 10% below the cut-off marks of general category candidates" in the order dated 14.10.2008 of this Court?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... ce is made to Transfer Pricing Officer and that therefore, Revenue claims longer period of limitation for completing the assessment. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that objections raised by the petitioner on 22.2.2010 have so far not been disposed of. By virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITA, 259 ITR 19, the Department was duty bound to consider such objections and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents and in particular, the Assessing Officer to dispose of the objections of the petitioner to the notice for reopening. This shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ultimately after such objections are disposed of, if the petitioner still aggrieved, it would be open for the petitioner to take such remedy as may be available under law. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of at this stage.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... arlier years (1993-94 to 1995-96) and hence those questions need not be entertained. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted on question (a), which reads thus - “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the fifth turbine is an industrial undertaking on which deduction under Section 80I was allowable ? “ 2. Mr. Toprani waives service for the respondent.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1124
Set off of the dividend income against the speculation loss - “dividend” is placed under the head “Income from other sources” - Held that:- As already reproduced it has been consistently held from material on record that shares were held by the assessee as stockintrade. CIT(Appeals) as well as tribunal therefore, were of the opinion that dividend income was incidental to share business and that therefore, irrespective of provisions contained in Section 56 of the Act and explanation to section 73, loss should be adjusted against such business income.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1123
... ...
... ... ..... 2. On hearing both sides and nothing that the period in dispute is entirely prior to 1.4.2008, I find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Commissioner vs. ABB Ltd. and Others - 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) holding that upto 1.4.2008, credit is admissible on service tax paid on services which are availed even beyond the point of clearance of goods. Following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1122
Whether transporters (writ petitioners before the High Court) could only provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle as mandated by Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"], and no luggage could be carried on the roof of the vehicle?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1121
... ...
... ... ..... n this issue. The ld. CIT(A) has reduced the addition to ₹ 1 lakh after considering the material facts of the case. In our view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not proper because he has considered 50 of diesel purchased on 31.3.2006 as closing stock. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is without any basis. However, the Assessing Officer has correctly observed that the assessee did not maintain any log book/stock book for diesel, therefore, it would be difficult to judge as to the quantum average of daily consumption of diesel for running the DG sets. The estimation made by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard seems to be fair and reasonable. There was no justification in disallowing 50 of the diesel purchased on 31.3.2006. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss ground No. 2 of the appeal. 12. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1120
... ...
... ... ..... der. Such a laconic order cannot stand the nuanced scrutiny. It is obligatory on the part of the authorities to ascribe cogent reasons while dealing with the said applications as reason is heart and soul of an order. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we have no other option and are compelled to quash the order dated 24th September, 2010 contained in Annexure P-1 and accordingly we so do. We direct the competent authority of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. It needs no special emphasis to state that the competent authority shall issue a notice to the petitioner, fix a date and thereafter deal with the stand urged and pass an order by ascribing reasons which would be germane to the issues raised. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1119
Waiver of pre-deposit and penalties - The main case of the appellant is that they are not liable to pay Service Tax on the royalty paid as consideration for purchase of technical know-how from abroad inasmuch as the technical knowhow is not recognized or protected by any law in India - Held that: - if Service Tax is required to be paid on the transaction in question, CENVAT credit thereof will be available to them as recipient of the service by virtue of Section 66A of the FA, 1994, resulting in revenue neutral situation - Considering the plea of revenue-neutrality raised by the learned counsel, waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery granted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1118
Addition made on account of closing stock of natural gas - We are of the view that the AO was bound to follow the directions of the Tribunal furnished for this year in decision dated 22.4.2009, in which it is mentioned that the matter has already been restored to the file of the AO for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. Accordingly, the matter was also restored to the file of the AO for this year. However, in the order for assessment year 2002-03 dated 25.07.2008, a clear finding was given that loss of about 4% of purchases is reasonable subject to verification. Instead of verifying the percentage of loss, the AO reproduced his earlier order. The loss of 3.4% is borne out by audited accounts, which is lower than the average loss of about 4%.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... ok. The mere fact that the assessee’s business project has not seen light of the day cannot justify disallowance of expenses. We have noted that the authorities below have observed that requisite details of expenses or justification of expenses were not available before them. However, learned counsel has filed copies of letters and submissions filed before the authorities below which is specifically set out details and justification for expenses. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing officer for adjudication denovo in the light of these details and justifications. We direct the assessee to place all these materials before the Assessing Officer once again, and we also direct the AO to redecide the matter in accordance with law. 11. Ground No.2 is thus treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1116
Whether the High Court erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune of ₹ 25,000/- each as the High Court did not hold any enquiry and passed the order merely after considering the status report submitted by the appellant no.1 without hearing any of the persons against whom allegations of abuse of power had been made?
-
2011 (8) TMI 1115
Revisional Power of Commissioner u/s 263 - Assessee contended that initially a show cause notice u/s 263 was issued - After a long pause, the successor Commissioner of Income-tax issued again a show cause notice under S.263 of the Act on proposing revision on entirely different grounds - The commissioner was not justified in assuming the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], the Commissioner can exercise revision jurisdictional u/s 263 if he is satisfied that the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is (i)erroneous; and also (ii) prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The view so taken by the AO without making the requisite inquiries or examining the claim of the assessee will per se be an erroneous view and hence will be amenable to revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Second reason is that it is not taking of any view that will take the matter under the scope of Section 263. The view taken by the Assessing Officer should not be a mere view in vacuum but a judicial view.
As already stated earlier, we are not able to appreciate on what material was placed before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage to take such a view. The assessee has also not been able to lead enough evidence to show to us that any inquiry was made by the Ao in this regard. Therefore mere allegation that the Assessing Officer has taken a view in the matter will not put the matter beyond the purview of Section 263 unless the view so taken by the Assessing Officer is a judicial view consciously based upon proper inquiries and appreciation of all the relevant factual and legal aspects of the case.
In the case of income tax matters each assessment year is an independent assessable distinct unit in which principles of res judicata are not applicable. The income of each assessment year and admissible expenses are determined in each year considering the facts and circumstances of the case prevailing during the year. As per the facts and circumstances of the case if there is a change in the facts and circumstances, a different view as per the changed facts and circumstances is required to be taken - Thus Principle of consistency can't be followed in income tax matters.
In this case, the CIT came to conclusion that the assessee is engaged in the business of buying and selling of shares and income arising out of these transactions has to be considered as income from business instead of considering the same as income from capital gain. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT. The same is confirmed - Decision against Assessee.
Profit arising out of sales of shares - Income from business or Capital Gain? - Assessee was frequently purchasing and selling the shares and mutual funds - CIT(A) treated such income as income from profit and gains of business or profession instead of Capital gain - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, whether or not a person carried on business in a particular commodity must depend upon volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale in a class of goods and the transaction must ordinarily be entered into with a profit motive. After analysing the statement, it is observed that assessee is buying and selling shares and mutual funds in the same year very frequently.
Looking into the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale in shares by the assessee, it cannot be said that these transactions were entered into only for the purpose of investment and there was no motive of the assessee to earn profit. Therefore, only inference which can be drawn is that the income earned by the assessee out of sale and purchase of these shares was an income under the head ‘profit and gains of business or profession.' Therefore, the CIT is justified in treating the profit arising out of sale of shares acquired by the assessee as income from business - Decision against Assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... ustoms dated 13th September, 2010, in so far as it directed re-export of the imported car in question and therefore the 'bank guarantee' given pursuant to the interim order may not be permitted to be revoked by the appellant herein. 6. It appears from the appellate order dated 27.01.2011, that the appellate authority is under the wrong impression that by the interim order dated 5th October, 2010, this Court set aside the re-export order referred to therein. It is an error which is required to be corrected in an appropriate proceedings if at all pursued by the Revenue. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct that the 'bank guarantee' given, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, by the appellant herein may be revoked by the appellant. It is open to the Revenue, if they are aggrieved by the appellate order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to pursue the statutory remedies available to them. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
............
|
